Misrepresenting Grammarians

Martin & Rose (2007: 1):

In this book we are concerned with interpreting discourse by analysing it. For us this means treating discourse as more than words in clauses; we want to focus on meaning beyond the clause, on semantic resources that lead us from one clause to another as a text unfolds. … In a sense then this book is an invitation to grammarians to reconsider meaning in the clause from the perspective of meaning in texts;

Blogger Comments:

[1] The discourse of this Martin & Rose text begins with four claims about the 'social activities' of grammarians:

1. grammarians treat discourse as just words in clauses;
2. grammarians don't focus on meaning beyond the clause;
3. grammarians don't focus on semantic resources that lead from one clause to another as a text unfolds;
4. grammarians don't already consider meaning in the clause from the perspective of meaning in texts.

The validity of such claims depends on the meaning of the word 'grammarian' in this context: the field of Systemic Functional Linguistics.  In the view of the theorist who created SFL theory, a grammarian is a linguist who is concerned with both strata of the content plane: lexicogrammar and semantics.  Halliday (2008: 85):

…and I should say, by the way, that by “the grammarian” here I understand one who works in lexicogrammar and semantics: the systems thinker on the content plane…

As this quote also suggests, Halliday uses the term 'grammarian' for linguists who are primarily concerned with the system pole of the cline of instantiation — language as system — in contrast to the term 'text linguist' or 'discourse analyst', which he uses for linguists who are primarily concerned with the instance pole of the cline of instantiation — language as text.

Importantly, Halliday (2008: 85, 126) stresses that both of these complementary perspectives, of the grammarian and of the discourse analyst, are necessary:

… whichever of these rôles we are adopting [grammarian or discourse analyst], we need to observe from both ends. The grammarian, however system-oriented he may be, has to monitor instances of discourse; the discourse analyst, however text-oriented, has to keep an eye on the overall potential. The complementarity means that, unless you shift your angle, you will distort the picture: you cannot know all that is going on if you keep to just one observational perspective. …

It is a mistake to restrict our angle of vision to just one perspective or the other, or to treat the discourse analyst and grammarian as if they inhabited two different realms of intellectual being.

In stark contrast, Martin & Rose simply use the term 'grammarians' for linguists who prefer to use Halliday's theory of grammar (1985, 1994, 2004, 2014) instead of Martin's theory of discourse semantics (1992)* in the analysis of texts.  In doing so, they also, therefore, confuse (system-oriented) grammarians with (text-oriented) discourse analysts.

In short, Martin & Rose have used a type of 'straw man' argument to promote the use of Martin's model:

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.  One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". … This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.

[2] By the same token, the discourse of this Martin & Rose text begins with four claims that set out what is to be achieved:

1. Martin & Rose will treat discourse as more than words in clauses;
2. Martin & Rose will focus on meaning beyond the clause;
3. Martin & Rose will focus on semantic resources that lead from one clause to another as a text unfolds;
4. Martin & Rose will consider meaning in the clause from the perspective of meaning in texts.

In making these claims, Martin & Rose have provided four criteria by which to judge the success or failure of their enterprise — in their own terms.


* For the theoretical inconsistencies in Martin's theory, see the 2,000+ arguments at the blog Martin's Discourse Semantics, Register & Genre here.